In regards to a franchise QB, when you find that guy it props the team up.

Brady in NE has had some poor talent and defenses around him over the years, but wins. Manning in Indy, winner.

Rodgers is carrying the Packers. Brees has carried NO for years.

That QB can elevate the team. Still need pieces, talent on both sides, but that QB is really important in the NFL.

But BPA is always the best bet.

disagree.
peyton had great talent around him offensively and during his super bowl year his defense stepped up major.

rodgers and brees also imo depended on their defense to carry them during their superbowl run. rodgers barely out played the bears rookie qb during the nfc championship and the defense bailed him out. didnt no's defense lead the nfl in turnovers that superbowl year. not to mention the pick six in the SB to seal the win.

iirc didnt brady take over a not to far removed from the playoffs pats team when bledsloe went down.

without defense those guys would be lumped into the marino, moon, jim kelly etc class of qb's

It's true, even when these guys had great years it was the rest of the team and often the defense stepping up to push them over the top.

It's easily forgot, but it happens all the time. During both of Eli's SBs, it was their defense that elevated in the postseason run ignificantly over what it was before.
And Brady, when the Pats actually won their Super Bowls, had the benefit of what was a fantastic defense. They changed the CB contact rules because of that defense.. Need I list the guys - Asante Samuel, Seymour, Bruschi, Vrabel, Ty Law, Rodney Harrison, and the list goes on..

Now, that said, you DO need that premier QB to even get there. But you need more to win it. So, in the end, yeah.. We need a heck of alot more than we have...

In regards to a franchise QB, when you find that guy it props the team up.

Brady in NE has had some poor talent and defenses around him over the years, but wins. Manning in Indy, winner.

Rodgers is carrying the Packers. Brees has carried NO for years.

That QB can elevate the team. Still need pieces, talent on both sides, but that QB is really important in the NFL.

But BPA is always the best bet.

True. A QB can make up for a lot of deficiences- but that QB needs to be great. Are Matt Barkley or Geno Smith Brady, Rodgers, or Brees material? I'm cool with either QB or pass rusher in the 1st next year. I'm happy with palmer but with his contract he may not be around. I dont think we can go wrong with BPA, to be honest. A QB will elevate the WRs and RB, and even make up for a poor o-line. A pass rusher can elevate his d-line and make the LB's and DB's job much easier. Either one will help out their unit a lot.

Burgesskills wrote:

You guys keep talking about how you have to develop a rookie QB for years, have you guys missed the NFL games these past years. Newton, Luck, RG3, rookie QB's who are stepping right in and doing well.

But why do you think such a big deal was made out of Cam Newton having such an impactful and successful rookie season? That stuff just doesnt happen often. In fact, it is very rare. Luck was a guy everyone who had ever watched him play knew would be a good QB from the get-go, but he was the absolute best QB prospect in over a decade. Sure, there have been rookie QBs who made it to the playoffs as part of a good team, or played well, but these 3 guys are the only ones to really make a huge impact this early on in the last 10+ years.

History is proof that more often than not, a 1st round QB busts or becomes nothing more than average:

The guys who really made an impact as a rookie (and were not just part of a good team):

Peyton Manning
Cam Newton
Andrew Luck
Robert Griffin

The point it just because "insert any name here" did it, doesnt mean anyone else we draft will. They are all different QBs with different skills and abilities, from different teams in different conferences playing different opponents, being coached by different coaches, etc. I'm not trying to be a smart-*** to you or anything, hope it doesnt come across that way, but only 4 out of 27 QBs have come in as rookies and really looked great so I cant agree with your statement at all. When it comes down to it, every situation will be different. A more NFL-ready rookie QB will surely find more success early on if he goes to a team with a good OL and some talented offensive players already there. On the flip side, a good QB prospect could really struggle behind our line, especially if our run game doesnt get fixed. If our offesne was already set up, I would say go for a rookie QB and let him start right away, but putting a rookie in our offense would not do us any good. I can almost guarantee that the rest of the offense would hold him back, so even if he was ready to make aan immediate impact he wouldnt be able to.

Sure there have been plenty of busts in the NFL at Qb's taken early, but the same could be said for other non-skill positions.

Roberty Gallery never played up to his draft status, We grabbed Ro-McClain at number 7, he looks like garbage. Curry was taken 3rd overall and still hasn't lived up to the hype. We could draft "a can't miss" defensive stud early and he could flop too.

Newton was rare, now a year later RG3 looks to making the same if not better impact, and to this point Smith is playing better than RG3 was at Baylor. It's early and Smith could come down a bit.

You guys are acting like if we go all defense in the draft this is going to turn around. Our offense looks terrible too. The second half Denver's D dominated us. Miami's D throttled us and Arizona put points on the board against the Phins. It's starts with the Qb and you guys all make excuses for Carson. It's the scheme, it's the lack of a run game, the O-line sucks. excuses, excuses, excuses.

The Packers went 15-1 with a terrible Defense last year. Without Rogers they would have been 8-8. Brady carried his team to the Super Bowl last year and the D was a joke.

Warner took his Rams to the big game with an awful Defense. Manning's Defenses have been average with some plus players. They had Freeney, Bob Sanders, and Mathis. When you have a Manning that could points on the board at will it forces the opposition to scrap their ball control plans to keep Peyton off the field and they are forced to throw. They get pressure from Freeney and Mathis which forces the QB in to forcing throws. His defense was never great.

Eli had great pass rushers too, but the defense was never elite. I love how you guys want to compare our rebuild to Super Bowl winning QB's/teams. We need to have a winning season, a play-off season, then worry about getting back to the super bowl. Even with the best defense in the league, Carson Palmer would not lead this team to the Super Bowl.

It's starts with the Qb and you guys all make excuses for Carson. It's the scheme, it's the lack of a run game, the O-line sucks. excuses, excuses, excuses.

That's actually not true. The offense starts with the scheme. And since most will tell you that Greg Knapp is arguably the worst offensive coordinator in the league, choosing to ignore that shows the little you know about the way a successful offense works._________________

Last edited by Darkness on Thu Oct 04, 2012 12:40 pm; edited 1 time in total

The Packers went 15-1 with a terrible Defense last year. Without Rogers they would have been 8-8. Brady carried his team to the Super Bowl last year and the D was a joke.

Warner took his Rams to the big game with an awful Defense. Manning's Defenses have been average with some plus players. They had Freeney, Bob Sanders, and Mathis. When you have a Manning that could points on the board at will it forces the opposition to scrap their ball control plans to keep Peyton off the field and they are forced to throw. They get pressure from Freeney and Mathis which forces the QB in to forcing throws. His defense was never great.

Eli had great pass rushers too, but the defense was never elite. I love how you guys want to compare our rebuild to Super Bowl winning QB's/teams. We need to have a winning season, a play-off season, then worry about getting back to the super bowl. Even with the best defense in the league, Carson Palmer would not lead this team to the Super Bowl.

In regards to a franchise QB, when you find that guy it props the team up.

Brady in NE has had some poor talent and defenses around him over the years, but wins. Manning in Indy, winner.

Rodgers is carrying the Packers. Brees has carried NO for years.

That QB can elevate the team. Still need pieces, talent on both sides, but that QB is really important in the NFL.

But BPA is always the best bet.

True. A QB can make up for a lot of deficiences- but that QB needs to be great. Are Matt Barkley or Geno Smith Brady, Rodgers, or Brees material? I'm cool with either QB or pass rusher in the 1st next year. I'm happy with palmer but with his contract he may not be around. I dont think we can go wrong with BPA, to be honest. A QB will elevate the WRs and RB, and even make up for a poor o-line. A pass rusher can elevate his d-line and make the LB's and DB's job much easier. Either one will help out their unit a lot.

Burgesskills wrote:

You guys keep talking about how you have to develop a rookie QB for years, have you guys missed the NFL games these past years. Newton, Luck, RG3, rookie QB's who are stepping right in and doing well.

But why do you think such a big deal was made out of Cam Newton having such an impactful and successful rookie season? That stuff just doesnt happen often. In fact, it is very rare. Luck was a guy everyone who had ever watched him play knew would be a good QB from the get-go, but he was the absolute best QB prospect in over a decade. Sure, there have been rookie QBs who made it to the playoffs as part of a good team, or played well, but these 3 guys are the only ones to really make a huge impact this early on in the last 10+ years.

History is proof that more often than not, a 1st round QB busts or becomes nothing more than average:

The guys who really made an impact as a rookie (and were not just part of a good team):

Peyton Manning
Cam Newton
Andrew Luck
Robert Griffin

The point it just because "insert any name here" did it, doesnt mean anyone else we draft will. They are all different QBs with different skills and abilities, from different teams in different conferences playing different opponents, being coached by different coaches, etc. I'm not trying to be a smart-*** to you or anything, hope it doesnt come across that way, but only 4 out of 27 QBs have come in as rookies and really looked great so I cant agree with your statement at all. When it comes down to it, every situation will be different. A more NFL-ready rookie QB will surely find more success early on if he goes to a team with a good OL and some talented offensive players already there. On the flip side, a good QB prospect could really struggle behind our line, especially if our run game doesnt get fixed. If our offesne was already set up, I would say go for a rookie QB and let him start right away, but putting a rookie in our offense would not do us any good. I can almost guarantee that the rest of the offense would hold him back, so even if he was ready to make aan immediate impact he wouldnt be able to.

Sure there have been plenty of busts in the NFL at Qb's taken early, but the same could be said for other non-skill positions.

Roberty Gallery never played up to his draft status, We grabbed Ro-McClain at number 7, he looks like garbage. Curry was taken 3rd overall and still hasn't lived up to the hype. We could draft "a can't miss" defensive stud early and he could flop too.

Newton was rare, now a year later RG3 looks to making the same if not better impact, and to this point Smith is playing better than RG3 was at Baylor. It's early and Smith could come down a bit.

You guys are acting like if we go all defense in the draft this is going to turn around. Our offense looks terrible too. The second half Denver's D dominated us. Miami's D throttled us and Arizona put points on the board against the Phins. It's starts with the Qb and you guys all make excuses for Carson. It's the scheme, it's the lack of a run game, the O-line sucks. excuses, excuses, excuses.

Need I remind anyone that while Newton and RGIII look great, their teams haven't won a damn thing? What impact do we want - a talked about exceptional player who is nice to watch play, or playoffs and wins? Rookies don't sniff playoffs at QB unless the rest of the team pitches in quite a lot. See Rothlisberger and Flacco for examples of that.

The Packers went 15-1 with a terrible Defense last year. Without Rogers they would have been 8-8. Brady carried his team to the Super Bowl last year and the D was a joke.

Warner took his Rams to the big game with an awful Defense. Manning's Defenses have been average with some plus players. They had Freeney, Bob Sanders, and Mathis. When you have a Manning that could points on the board at will it forces the opposition to scrap their ball control plans to keep Peyton off the field and they are forced to throw. They get pressure from Freeney and Mathis which forces the QB in to forcing throws. His defense was never great.

Eli had great pass rushers too, but the defense was never elite. I love how you guys want to compare our rebuild to Super Bowl winning QB's/teams. We need to have a winning season, a play-off season, then worry about getting back to the super bowl. Even with the best defense in the league, Carson Palmer would not lead this team to the Super Bowl.

Yes, but...

Rodgers and Brady last year, neither won the Super Bowl. When they did the defense contributed mightily.
Same goes for Eli. The defense was not elite. But when they won Super Bowls it played at an elite level throughout the playoffs.

Warner is an exception, because that was an offensive based team. Thing is, their execution and team play on offense as well as talent level went well beyond just Warner. He didn't do any of that on his own. Faulk, Pace, Holt, Bruce, and more..

You have a valid point. A truly elite QB can take a team very far and hide alot of flaws. But the actual Super Bowls seem to be won by more than that.

Honestly, I hear what you are saying on the last part. One step at a time, it makes total sense.
But when you are at the very beginning of a rebuild as we are, you get some key pieces to work with and have to have a Super Bowl plan in mind at least. A team only gets so many top 5 draft picks. Doing the right thing with them can mean the difference between a Super Bowl and a decade of crapola. You have to have a Super Bowl in mind, even if it's 6 years away in your mind. Getting from here to there is what happens step by step.

Look where we could be, and where we are, with so many top five picks.

Even if we busted on half of those 1st rounders, we could still have Aaron Rodgers, Calvin Johnson, and Larry Fitzgerald right now. Yeesh...Instead we have Fabian Washington, Robert Gallery, and Jamarcus Russell. Wait, no we don't. We have nothing.

All in all what I pray for is not even totally about who we draft. It's about having a scouting department that has any idea of what they are doing.

Last edited by holyghost on Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:25 pm; edited 1 time in total

In regards to a franchise QB, when you find that guy it props the team up.

Brady in NE has had some poor talent and defenses around him over the years, but wins. Manning in Indy, winner.

Rodgers is carrying the Packers. Brees has carried NO for years.

That QB can elevate the team. Still need pieces, talent on both sides, but that QB is really important in the NFL.

But BPA is always the best bet.

True. A QB can make up for a lot of deficiences- but that QB needs to be great. Are Matt Barkley or Geno Smith Brady, Rodgers, or Brees material? I'm cool with either QB or pass rusher in the 1st next year. I'm happy with palmer but with his contract he may not be around. I dont think we can go wrong with BPA, to be honest. A QB will elevate the WRs and RB, and even make up for a poor o-line. A pass rusher can elevate his d-line and make the LB's and DB's job much easier. Either one will help out their unit a lot.

Burgesskills wrote:

You guys keep talking about how you have to develop a rookie QB for years, have you guys missed the NFL games these past years. Newton, Luck, RG3, rookie QB's who are stepping right in and doing well.

But why do you think such a big deal was made out of Cam Newton having such an impactful and successful rookie season? That stuff just doesnt happen often. In fact, it is very rare. Luck was a guy everyone who had ever watched him play knew would be a good QB from the get-go, but he was the absolute best QB prospect in over a decade. Sure, there have been rookie QBs who made it to the playoffs as part of a good team, or played well, but these 3 guys are the only ones to really make a huge impact this early on in the last 10+ years.

History is proof that more often than not, a 1st round QB busts or becomes nothing more than average:

The guys who really made an impact as a rookie (and were not just part of a good team):

Peyton Manning
Cam Newton
Andrew Luck
Robert Griffin

The point it just because "insert any name here" did it, doesnt mean anyone else we draft will. They are all different QBs with different skills and abilities, from different teams in different conferences playing different opponents, being coached by different coaches, etc. I'm not trying to be a smart-*** to you or anything, hope it doesnt come across that way, but only 4 out of 27 QBs have come in as rookies and really looked great so I cant agree with your statement at all. When it comes down to it, every situation will be different. A more NFL-ready rookie QB will surely find more success early on if he goes to a team with a good OL and some talented offensive players already there. On the flip side, a good QB prospect could really struggle behind our line, especially if our run game doesnt get fixed. If our offesne was already set up, I would say go for a rookie QB and let him start right away, but putting a rookie in our offense would not do us any good. I can almost guarantee that the rest of the offense would hold him back, so even if he was ready to make aan immediate impact he wouldnt be able to.

Wasn't Peyton Manning 1-15 his rookie year?

Yea, but if you go by record then you can take Cam Newton off that list, and most likely Luck and RGIII since I doubt they have a winning record this year. Newton, RGII and Luck (so far) have been playing very well. Manning had a ton of picks his rookie year, but despite the team's record, he set 5 different NFL rookie records, and we are talking about rookie QBs making an impact.

Last edited by ZoomWaffle on Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:35 pm; edited 1 time in total

Sure there have been plenty of busts in the NFL at Qb's taken early, but the same could be said for other non-skill positions.

Roberty Gallery never played up to his draft status, We grabbed Ro-McClain at number 7, he looks like garbage. Curry was taken 3rd overall and still hasn't lived up to the hype. We could draft "a can't miss" defensive stud early and he could flop too.

Newton was rare, now a year later RG3 looks to making the same if not better impact, and to this point Smith is playing better than RG3 was at Baylor. It's early and Smith could come down a bit.

You guys are acting like if we go all defense in the draft this is going to turn around. Our offense looks terrible too. The second half Denver's D dominated us. Miami's D throttled us and Arizona put points on the board against the Phins. It's starts with the Qb and you guys all make excuses for Carson. It's the scheme, it's the lack of a run game, the O-line sucks. excuses, excuses, excuses.

I wasnt saying that other positions dont bust, and I wasnt even saying we must go DE or any other position over QB. I was just saying you are wrong in saying that just because Newton, Luck and RGIII found instant success doesnt mean any other rookie QB will. All those names were not meant to show busts, but rather the overwhelming odds against a rookie QB making a real impact. As I said, even a lot of good QBs took a a few years to turn into good QBs.

In regards to a franchise QB, when you find that guy it props the team up.

Brady in NE has had some poor talent and defenses around him over the years, but wins. Manning in Indy, winner.

Rodgers is carrying the Packers. Brees has carried NO for years.

That QB can elevate the team. Still need pieces, talent on both sides, but that QB is really important in the NFL.

But BPA is always the best bet.

True. A QB can make up for a lot of deficiences- but that QB needs to be great. Are Matt Barkley or Geno Smith Brady, Rodgers, or Brees material? I'm cool with either QB or pass rusher in the 1st next year. I'm happy with palmer but with his contract he may not be around. I dont think we can go wrong with BPA, to be honest. A QB will elevate the WRs and RB, and even make up for a poor o-line. A pass rusher can elevate his d-line and make the LB's and DB's job much easier. Either one will help out their unit a lot.

Burgesskills wrote:

You guys keep talking about how you have to develop a rookie QB for years, have you guys missed the NFL games these past years. Newton, Luck, RG3, rookie QB's who are stepping right in and doing well.

But why do you think such a big deal was made out of Cam Newton having such an impactful and successful rookie season? That stuff just doesnt happen often. In fact, it is very rare. Luck was a guy everyone who had ever watched him play knew would be a good QB from the get-go, but he was the absolute best QB prospect in over a decade. Sure, there have been rookie QBs who made it to the playoffs as part of a good team, or played well, but these 3 guys are the only ones to really make a huge impact this early on in the last 10+ years.

History is proof that more often than not, a 1st round QB busts or becomes nothing more than average:

The guys who really made an impact as a rookie (and were not just part of a good team):

Peyton Manning
Cam Newton
Andrew Luck
Robert Griffin

The point it just because "insert any name here" did it, doesnt mean anyone else we draft will. They are all different QBs with different skills and abilities, from different teams in different conferences playing different opponents, being coached by different coaches, etc. I'm not trying to be a smart-*** to you or anything, hope it doesnt come across that way, but only 4 out of 27 QBs have come in as rookies and really looked great so I cant agree with your statement at all. When it comes down to it, every situation will be different. A more NFL-ready rookie QB will surely find more success early on if he goes to a team with a good OL and some talented offensive players already there. On the flip side, a good QB prospect could really struggle behind our line, especially if our run game doesnt get fixed. If our offesne was already set up, I would say go for a rookie QB and let him start right away, but putting a rookie in our offense would not do us any good. I can almost guarantee that the rest of the offense would hold him back, so even if he was ready to make aan immediate impact he wouldnt be able to.

Wasn't Peyton Manning 1-15 his rookie year?

Yea, but if you go by record then you can take Cam Newton off that list, and most likely Luck and RGIII since I doubt they have a winning record this year. Newton, RGII and Luck (so far) have been playing very well. Manning had a ton of picks his rookie year, so him playing very well is debatable. I just put him on the list because, despite the team's record, he set 5 different NFL rookie records, since we are talking about rookie QBs making an impact.

I hear ya.

It just really solidifes the point that having an impact as a rokokie QB still may not get us wins.

I'm so damn desperate to see the playoffs that I will take any ugly wins over how any player looks or is hyped. I don't care who does it or how they do it.

It's starts with the Qb and you guys all make excuses for Carson. It's the scheme, it's the lack of a run game, the O-line sucks. excuses, excuses, excuses.

That's actually not true. The offense starts with the scheme. And since most will tell you that Greg Knapp is arguably the worst offensive coordinator in the league, choosing to ignore that shows the little you know about the way a successful offense works.

While I do think Knapp sucks. If he had 5 guys who could block, a #1 WR and playmaking TE I would venture a guess it would yield totally different results._________________

The Packers went 15-1 with a terrible Defense last year. Without Rogers they would have been 8-8. Brady carried his team to the Super Bowl last year and the D was a joke.

Warner took his Rams to the big game with an awful Defense. Manning's Defenses have been average with some plus players. They had Freeney, Bob Sanders, and Mathis. When you have a Manning that could points on the board at will it forces the opposition to scrap their ball control plans to keep Peyton off the field and they are forced to throw. They get pressure from Freeney and Mathis which forces the QB in to forcing throws. His defense was never great.

Eli had great pass rushers too, but the defense was never elite. I love how you guys want to compare our rebuild to Super Bowl winning QB's/teams. We need to have a winning season, a play-off season, then worry about getting back to the super bowl. Even with the best defense in the league, Carson Palmer would not lead this team to the Super Bowl.

Yes, but...

Rodgers and Brady last year, neither won the Super Bowl. When they did the defense contributed mightily.
Same goes for Eli. The defense was not elite. But when they won Super Bowls it played at an elite level throughout the playoffs.

Warner is an exception, because that was an offensive based team. Thing is, their execution and team play on offense as well as talent level went well beyond just Warner. He didn't do any of that on his own. Faulk, Pace, Holt, Bruce, and more..
You have a valid point. A truly elite QB can take a team very far and hide alot of flaws. But the actual Super Bowls seem to be won by more than that.

Honestly, I hear what you are saying on the last part. One step at a time, it makes total sense.
But when you are at the very beginning of a rebuild as we are, you get some key pieces to work with and have to have a Super Bowl plan in mind at least. A team only gets so many top 5 draft picks. Doing the right thing with them can mean the difference between a Super Bowl and a decade of crapola. You have to have a Super Bowl in mind, even if it's 6 years away in your mind. Getting from here to there is what happens step by step.

Look where we could be, and where we are, with so many top five picks.

Even if we busted on half of those 1st rounders, we could still have Aaron Rodgers, Calvin Johnson, and Larry Fitzgerald right now. Yeesh...Instead we have Fabian Washington, Robert Gallery, and Jamarcus Russell. Wait, no we don't. We have nothing.

All in all what I pray for is not even totally about who we draft. It's about having a scouting department that has any idea of what they are doing.

+1

And because the Rams offense was so great that year, people forget they actually had a stellar defense that year. They allowed 15 PPG, had 29 interceptions and collected 57 sacks. of course there could be a few exceptions, but for the most part it takes a whole team to win a Super Bowl. Rodgers is a great QB, but if he didnt have Jennings, Nelson, Finley and Cobb he wouldnt win as many games. It may seem obvious that a QB does better with his biggest playmakers in the lineup, but that just proves the point that it takes more than just a great QB to win a Super Bowl.

The Packers went 15-1 with a terrible Defense last year. Without Rogers they would have been 8-8. Brady carried his team to the Super Bowl last year and the D was a joke.

Warner took his Rams to the big game with an awful Defense. Manning's Defenses have been average with some plus players. They had Freeney, Bob Sanders, and Mathis. When you have a Manning that could points on the board at will it forces the opposition to scrap their ball control plans to keep Peyton off the field and they are forced to throw. They get pressure from Freeney and Mathis which forces the QB in to forcing throws. His defense was never great.

Eli had great pass rushers too, but the defense was never elite. I love how you guys want to compare our rebuild to Super Bowl winning QB's/teams. We need to have a winning season, a play-off season, then worry about getting back to the super bowl. Even with the best defense in the league, Carson Palmer would not lead this team to the Super Bowl.

Exception, not the rule. You can 2 QBs who won w/ great defenses. You can name countless Superbowl winners and playoff contenders who had a great QB.

The Bucs and Ravens defenses were insane top to bottom. It's rare to have that kind of talent across the board on defense. Deep and start studded. 9ers are the closest thing to it since the Bucs._________________